WikiLeaks Exposes the Danger of Pakistan’s Nukes

Posted on Jan 13, 2011

AP / Fareed Khan

A Pakistani man reads a document on the country’s nuclear program shown on a television screen at an electronics shop in Karachi. Once-secret U.S. diplomatic memos reveal Western concerns that Islamic militants might gain access to Pakistan’s nuclear material.

The cables reveal that the threat to the West has geometrically increased as a result of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. In one leaked document, then-shadow and now actual British Prime Minister David Cameron was reported to have raised the concern: “Cameron noted that most of the approximately one million UK citizens of Pakistani origin (mostly Punjabis and Kashmiris) living in the UK were not pro-Taliban but had been radicalized by the Iraq war” (4-9-09 cable).

U.S. foreign policy toward Pakistan must aim at improving favorability among its people so that the U.S. can then cooperate with its government on nuclear matters, but Ambassador Patterson reported that the opposite is occurring: “America is viewed with some suspicion by the majority of Pakistan’s people and its institutions. We are viewed at best as a fickle friend, and at worst as the reason why Pakistan is attacking its own. …”

There are many reasons why Pakistanis hate America, of course, including the perception that the U.S. is pro-India. But these cables reveal that the U.S. is pursuing policies, such as support for Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari , that increase this hatred rather than diminish it. On the one hand, Patterson wrote “Zardari is our best ally in Pakistan right now” and recommended strong support for him. On the other, she acknowledges that Zardari has an “approval rating [of only] 20%” and that he “sees himself as viewing the world the way Americans do; this same image works against him with the public” (2-04-09 and 6-20-09 cables). So why is the U.S. supporting a leader as despised by his own people as was the Shah of Iran? Patterson explains: “Zardari is less likely to make public announcements chastising the USG [U.S. government] for its policies in, and toward Pakistan (including on USG drone activity) than other senior GOP [government of Pakistan] officials” (6-20-09 cable). That is, while polls indicate that the Pakistani people overwhelmingly oppose drone assassinations, the U.S. is aligning itself with a hated leader who does not have the support of his people at least partly because he secretly supports the strikes.

The cables also reveal that U.S. war-fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan is strengthening jihadi forces in Pakistan, most ominously in its Punjabi heartland, not just border regions. According to a 12-05-08 cable, former National Intelligence Officer for South Asia Peter Lavoy “commented on two causes of instability in western Pakistan that could cause Pakistan to completely lose control of its Pashtun territories over the next few years.” The cable went on to say in paraphrasing Lavoy: “Traditional Pashtun tribal authority has broken down since the anti-Soviet jihad period, and is no longer capable of resolving social harmony at the community level. Pakistan has also promulgated a policy of neglect of Pashtun areas and still lacks a strategy to deal holistically with social problems of illiteracy, unemployment, and disaffected youth. Both of these situations play to the advantage of insurgent and extremist groups.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

A Feb. 19, 2009, cable from Patterson reveals that Army Chief of Staff Ashfaq Parvez Kayani “raised concern about the effect of a U.S. troop build-up in southern Afghanistan, which could push militants and refugees across the border into Balochistan and prompt an influx of foreign fighters.” Patterson reported that “even in the south of the prosperous Punjab we have seen an increasing trend to extremism among youth” (6-20-09 cable). That is, U.S. war-making in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s northwest territories are pushing more militants into the Pakistani heartland, increasing rather than diminishing the threat they pose to the Pakistani state.

While the government of Pakistan would, according to Patterson, prefer a strategy of “dialogue, deterrence and development,” the U.S. government has instead forced its ally to undertake offensives in both the Swat Valley and south Waziristan. Washington should tell Kayani, Patterson wrote, that “it will be difficult for international donors to support a government that is not prepared to go all-out to defend its own territory” (2-04-09, 2-19-09 cables).

The cables also reveal for the first time that the U.S. has gone even further in increasing anti-American hatred by secretly deploying Special Forces assassins in Pakistan. Patterson wrote that “the Pakistani Army has for just the second time approved deployment of U.S. special operation elements to support Pakistani military operations. ... These deployments are highly politically sensitive because of widely-held concerns among the public about Pakistani sovereignty and opposition to allowing foreign military forces to operate in any fashion on Pakistani soil” (10-09-09 cable). Celebrating this “sea change in Pakistani thinking,” Patterson indicated that this would lead to more U.S. assassination activities within Pakistan, saying that the first deployment “likely helped catalyze the follow-up requests for new and repeat support.”

The overall message from the WikiLeaks cables, therefore, is clear: A disastrously bungled U.S. policy toward Pakistan has led a majority of the Pakistani people to see the U.S. as their “enemy” and strengthened jihadi forces in both the northwest territories and Punjab heartland and thus made it more likely that anti-American forces could obtain Pakistani nuclear materials.

And these cables thus prove that America faces a basic choice: It can continue to try to win in Afghanistan and thus continue to destabilize the Pakistani state, increasing the danger of a nuclear incident. Or it can withdraw from Afghanistan, use a portion of the $100 billion it is annually wasting there to help restore the Pakistan economy, end the drone strikes, ground assassinations and other infringements of Pakistani sovereignty, and seek to build a new relationship with the Pakistani people so that their government will no longer fear openly cooperating with America to safeguard Pakistan’s nuclear materials.

Vice President Joe Biden’s trip to Pakistan came amid growing signs that the Obama administration is finally waking up to the growing crisis there that its policies have helped produce for the past 18 months. The question now is whether U.S. policy-makers will realize that they have been destabilizing already-fragile Pakistan and redirect their efforts toward more constructive ends.

There is reason to believe such a reformed policy could work. A Pew poll last July revealed that while only 17 percent of Pakistanis view the U.S. favorably, 64 percent desire better relations. If the U.S. was to practice what it preaches and respect the Pakistani public’s democratic desires, it would be possible to create a foreign policy that would see the Pakistani and U.S. governments working together to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation, thus enhancing U.S. national security rather than continuing to weaken it.

If U.S. policy toward Pakistan changes in a way that increases U.S. national security, it will be due in no small part to the courage of those who revealed how U.S. policy is increasing the likelihood of nuclear proliferation and a devastating attack on U.S. soil. The American people owe Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, the website’s sources and its volunteers their gratitude.

Email: cryptome[at]earthlink.net
contact forhttp://cryptome.org/
Cryptome welcomes documents for publication that are prohibited by
governments worldwide, in particular material on freedom of expression,
privacy, cryptology, dual-use technologies, national security, intelligence, and
secret governance—open, secret and classified documents—but not limited
to those. Documents are removed from this site only by order served directly by
a US court having jurisdiction. No court order has ever been served; any order
served will be published here—or elsewhere if gagged by order. Bluffs will be
published if comical but otherwise ignored.

DVDs. By $25 or more generous donation for two DVDs of the Cryptome 14.5-
years archive from June 1996 to November 2010. The archive contains about
58,000 files (~8.9GB) published on Cryptome.org and its related sites along
with the companion site Cartome.org and US Army INSCOM Dossiers of about
25,000 pages. The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost.
Email a shipping address to cryptome[at]earthlink.net. How to Donate

“A lasting benefit of the death of Wikileaks is that other initiatives have learned from its experience to do better and not settle for the comfortable entombment of Wikileaks disembodied by Julian Assange on a country estate perfect for mourning in luxurious high style.”

As usual you give bastardry and dishonesty a good name. Assange has been living on this country estate because the owner is a former officer from the British army and it gives perfect visibility all round to see any nefarious types approaching the estate to kill or kidnap Assange. He had to have an address to go to or he wouldn’t have got bail. The man who allowed him to come and stay there showed great courage and morality, things you and tropic girl know nothing about and aren’t even interested in. And as for the death of Wikileaks I can only quote Mark Twain who said that rumours of his death had been greatly exaggerated.

I don’t think anyone could doubt your CIA-bank connections. But in reality you should expand that, the dual role of CEO and CIA to the large media empires, manufacturing, big farming, big pharma, and all those so-called UN “charities”. And all these world corporations are getting bigger and more monopolistic, as things are getting worse. Such is globalism.

Wikileaks’ is being managed by these entities, mainly the press, seemingly for money and fame. There is no need for that.

And, the bank info, which originally had to do with the illegal banking practices, laundering Afghan drug money, and world bank ponzi schemes, etc, has now dwindled into an expose on the personal lives and salaries of bank execs? (according to the news today) What??? A far cry.

Like was mentioned before. At this rate nothing substantial will ever come out.

29 December 2010http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-rip.htm
Wikileaks Rest in Peace
The original Wikileaks initiative is dead, replaced by a bloated apparatus
promising 260,000 cables at slower than a snail’s pace. At the rate of 20 cables
a day it will take 13,000 days to finish—some 35 years.

The original merits of Wikileaks have been lost in its transformation into a
publicity and fund-raising vehicle for Julian Assange as indicated in the
redesign website which billboards him.

Its once invaluable, steady stream of documents, packaged in its own, no-frills
format, is now a tiny dribble of documents apparently regulated by a compact
with a few main stream media which amplify the material well beyond its
significance. Days go by when nothing new is offered except outpouring of
manufactured news about Assange and a slew of trivial news and bombastic
commentaries for and against the initiative.

Will Wikileaks once again deliver its original promise or stay imprisoned in
bombshells so beloved by the main stream media?

What happened to the back-log of submissions to Wikileaks? Thousands a
week coming in, Assange claimed, for which he said there is no staff to process.
What staff is needed to process a 3-20 cables a day?

OpenLeaks is said to be preparing release of the backlog, but it too is moving
very slowly, its opening first scheduled in December 2010, now April 2011.
Perhaps it too is short of staff and financial resources but it has not publicly
stated that.

Assange and Domscheit-Berg are working on books, Assange to raise funds for
his legal defense, that of Domscheit-Berg not openly disclosed.

[...]
None of these grandstanders are taking risks covering Wikileaks and other
initiatives; they face no threat due to special protections bestowed by officials of
these “defenders of truth.” Among this select group Assange now cravenly hides
himself as “editor-in-chief.” They do not leak themselves, they manage leaks
from leakers who go to jail—call these the collaterally damaged.

A monument to The Original Wikileaks could be placed in the Newseum, in
Washington, DC, unveiled in synchrony with the two tell-all books aborning,
continuing a valiant PR effort initiated at the DC National Press Club—in
spring season April 2010.

A lasting benefit of the death of Wikileaks is that other initiatives have learned
from its experience to do better and not settle for the comfortable entombment
of Wikileaks disembodied by Julian Assange on a country estate perfect for
mourning in luxurious high style.

“Where’s all the information on the banks that he threatened to release, before Christmas?”

It’s coming and it will blow your claim that Wikileaks works for the CIA out of the water, since many of the directors of the banks have also been former directors of the CIA.

“Clark Clifford – The National Security Act of 1947 was written by Clark Clifford, a Democratic Party powerhouse, former Secretary of Defense, and one-time advisor to President Harry Truman. In the 1980s, as Chairman of First American Bancshares, Clifford was instrumental in getting the corrupt CIA drug bank BCCI a license to operate on American shores. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and banker.

John Foster and Allen Dulles – These two brothers “designed” the CIA for Clifford. Both were active in intelligence operations during WW II. Allen Dulles was the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland where he met frequently with Nazi leaders and looked after U.S. investments in Germany. John Foster went on to become Secretary of State under Dwight Eisenhower and Allen went on to serve as CIA Director under Eisenhower and was later fired by JFK. Their professions: partners in the most powerful - to this day - Wall Street law firm of Sullivan, Cromwell.

Bill Casey – Ronald Reagan’s CIA Director and OSS veteran who served as chief wrangler during the Iran-Contra years was, under President Richard Nixon, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and stockbroker.

David Doherty - The current Vice President of the New York Stock Exchange for enforcement is the retired General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency.

George Herbert Walker Bush – President from 1989 to January 1993, also served as CIA Director for 13 months from 1976-7. He is now a paid consultant to the Carlyle Group, the 11th largest defense contractor in the nation, which also shares joint investments with the bin Laden family.

A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard – The current Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is the former Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown and former Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust.

John Deutch - This retired CIA Director from the Clinton Administration currently sits on the board at Citigroup, the nation’s second largest bank, which has been repeatedly and overtly involved in the documented laundering of drug money. This includes Citigroup’s 2001 purchase of a Mexican bank known to launder drug money, Banamex.

Maurice “Hank” Greenburg – The CEO of AIG insurance, manager of the third largest capital investment pool in the world, was floated as a possible CIA Director in 1995. FTW exposed Greenberg’s and AIG’s long connection to CIA drug trafficking and covert operations in a two-part series that was interrupted just prior to the attacks of September 11. AIG’s stock has bounced back remarkably well since the attacks.

They’re all in it together and making billions while the taxpayers repeatedly have to bail them out for fear they will sink the entire economy. They’ve had a nice little scam going for decades and they are in bed with other like minded criminals, including organized crime.

The legitimate exposure websites and sources for documents, such as Cryptome, What Really Happened, Information Clearinghouse, Global Research, and many others, manage to expose documents and declassified information, in real time, without mainstream media “filters”.

And without putting their sources in jail, for life, and boinking loose women.

Really, people. You should know better. If you are such a fan of Mr. Hollywood Drippileak, then push him to do something really useful, and stop using his “filters”. Won’t happen.

Where’s all the information on the banks that he threatened to release, before Christmas?

RE: And what is he going to say that will get you out of the hole you’re in? I listen to
his program. He’s a lefty. He supports Wikileaks. He doesn’t have any doubts about ‘their
mission’, any more than I do. You’re the one with doubts about their mission but, of
course, you have no doubt about the CIA’s mission because you haven’t written one word
against them, only against Wikileaks. And your own morality is questionable to say the
least: when I pointed out that the CIA doesn’t bother going through the courts to get rid of
assets, they just have them killed, you calmly replied, ‘Agreed… when they’re no longer
useful.’ And why is Assange no longer useful? To define that you first have to define why
he WAS useful in the first place to a bunch of Fascist, war mongering alpha dogs like the
CIA? And why would the Pentagon have been thrilled to see the ‘Collateral Murder’ video
made public? As I’ve said, if you don’t want trouble with me, don’t take the Tropic Girl,
Candide route and throw meaningless gibberish around. Stick to facts: facts have no
religion and no political affiliation, which is why I like them.

NO RESPONSE! - why? when one writes both sides of a discussion, that’s all it
takes - let’s now imagine how my “... morality is questionable…” by writing NO
RESPONSE! - let us now hear how NO RESPONSE! is not ‘against them [CIA]
and “...only against Wikileaks…”

let me now step out of the virtual room and let you continue debating yourself in the
virtual mirror - it’s not hard to image you sitting at your keyboard envisioning ‘me’ actually
mouthing every fabrication you’ve stuffed into my virtual mouth… incredible in the purest
sense of the word!

This entire exchange with you, dear Sir or Madam, should be documented for examination
by students of rhetorical polemics as a compendium of literally all of the most
egregiously flawed debating tactics, to hence forth assiduously avoid!

‘For over 40 years Phillip Adams’ columns in major newspapers and magazine have provoked discussion and outrage. He’s been with The Australian since the early 1960s…’

True, but he is not one of the people who toes the Murdoch line. In fact they tried to fire him once and he ended up in hospital with heart trouble. Nothing about Phillip Adams has anything to do with the ‘Australian’s’ ‘mission’. He started working for them when they were still quite a respectable rag. Now they are nothing of the kind. He still writes a column but not in the actual paper: it’s in the magazine supplement that comes with the paper. The paper itself is full of lies, distortions and analysis that even a cat would laugh at - if cats could laugh.

“your take on this is wrong - I will now posit my own opinion (which I rarely do) - those guys are there to inflame Left vs Right divisive, street-fighting-style politics - the same reason Randi Rhodes is on the air to point to those guys as the enemy of so-called ‘progressives’ - all useful fools/tools/rich assets, whatever - tasked to distract from the common enemy: The Global Finance Oligarchy”.

No. They’re there to lie their heads off and support the Republican Party, the Tea Party and Sarah Palin and to spin lies about the war on terror and the Arab world. That’s all they ever do. Fox is a disgrace - to ethics, to journalism and to social progress. It serves no other purpose than those I’ve listed. It is simply a reflection of Murdoch’s own Fascism and nothing else.

“As a courtesy, let’s invite Mr. Adams to weigh in on all that’s been written about him here. Perhaps he’ll be interested in knowing how some Wikileaks Lemmings are using his association with Wikileaks in public blogs, as well as those questioning it’s mission.”

And what is he going to say that will get you out of the hole you’re in? I listen to his program. He’s a lefty. He supports Wikileaks. He doesn’t have any doubts about ‘their mission’, any more than I do. You’re the one with doubts about their mission but, of course, you have no doubt about the CIA’s mission because you haven’t written one word against them, only against Wikileaks. And your own morality is questionable to say the least: when I pointed out that the CIA doesn’t bother going through the courts to get rid of assets, they just have them killed, you calmly replied, ‘Agreed… when they’re no longer useful.’ And why is Assange no longer useful? To define that you first have to define why he WAS useful in the first place to a bunch of Fascist, war mongering alpha dogs like the CIA? And why would the Pentagon have been thrilled to see the ‘Collateral Murder’ video made public? As I’ve said, if you don’t want trouble with me, don’t take the Tropic Girl, Candide route and throw meaningless gibberish around. Stick to facts: facts have no religion and no political affiliation, which is why I like them.

RE: You made a false claim: that Wikileaks is a CIA front and you have been
(naturally) unable to sustain or prove that false claim - because it IS false.
That’s how the cookie crumbles. Move on.

Advice taken, in particular because almost everything you write about my so-
called “claims” is untrue.

I have never written “that Wikileaks is a CIA front.” I have questioned its
mission, searched online for different analyses of Wikileaks and cited those that
look pertinent. I make virtually no “claims” at all, make no efforts to impugn
anyone’s so-called ‘integrity’ and I do not fabricate assertions from the pens of
those with whom I am attempting civil discourse.

‘Straw-man’ rhetoric is just about the bottom of the amateur barrel, right down
there with ‘ad hominem invective’ and ‘begging the question’, all of which are
on ample display in your postings on this issue, thereby rendering logical and
cvil discourse a literal impossibility.

Look fearnotruth you are a person who wants to damage and discredit Wikileaks and Julian Assange and you will do anything and spin anything to do it. I have communicated with Phillip Adams myself. We’ve had friendly emails back and forth on quite a few occasions. He supports Wikileaks, and he supports Julian Assange, as do the vast majority of Australians, that is the salient point here, and anything in the ‘Australian’ that gave the impression that he didn’t was a lie and a distortion. However most Australians, including Phillip Adams do not support the CIA. You see how it just doesn’t match up? They know the truth about Wikileaks, a truth you’re trying to bury under a silly, fact-free conspiracy theory.

I don’t even know what you’re trying to prove now: that I’m a liar? That Phillip Adams is a liar? That because Phillip Adams allegedly has said he never gave Assange advice this means Assange automatically becomes someone who is working for the CIA? Give it up. Your case is lost. When you’re in a hole, stop digging. You made a false claim: that Wikileaks is a CIA front and you have been (naturally) unable to sustain or prove that false claim - because it IS false. That’s how the cookie crumbles. Move on.

Phillip Adams is a pretty busy guy who doesn’t fuss with blogs. He did answer a question about his relationship to Wikileaks

Phillip Adam: “largely correct..except that I first knew about Julian when he was a young hacker - discussed him and his activities on my program quite a few years ago - and have had him on recently, when the shitfight was escalating…..also had Pilger and quite a few other JA/WL supporters on to tak about him and the work…”

Mr. Adams: understood - 1 question if you please: is the article cited below accurate and truthful? Thank you.
WikiLeaks advisory board ‘pretty clearly window-dressing’ Stuart Rintoul From: The Australian December 09, 2010 12:00AMhttp://tinyurl.com/63jbfdt
On how he came to be a member of the WikiLeaks advisory board, Adams told The Australian: “He asked me to go on it years ago, when it was just a vague idea and WikiLeaks sounded like the sort of thing one should support, so I agreed. But as I point out to people, he has never asked for advice. The advisory board was pretty clearly window dressing, so he went for people identified with progressive policies around the place (he got Chomsky signed up in the States, for example).

“Most of those, I think, are in the same position as me: they have not met him and they haven’t been asked for advice either.”

In April, Mother Jones magazine revealed that several members of the “advisory board” knew nothing about it. Khamsitsang recalled getting a cryptic email from WikiLeaks a few years ago, but said he never agreed to be an adviser.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Jan 15, 2011, at 4:07 PM, Phillip Adams wrote:

haven’t got time to read them….don’t look at blogs or websites..and after 60 years in the media don’t carewhatpeople are saying about me, one way or the other….but thanks ..——- Original Message——-
From: fearnotruth
To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 9:43 AM
Subject: Truthdig: WikiLeaks Exposes the Danger of Pakistan’s Nukes

Hi,

This is on Truthdig - thought you would find it interesting, in particular since you’ve been cited several times. In my last posting I suggested that as a courtesy we invite you to speak for yourself on the way your association with Wikileaks is being used in these polemics.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=
WikiLeaks Exposes the Danger of Pakistan’s Nukes

There are few scenarios more frightening for America than a domestic nuclear terrorist attack. We now know that U.S. policy is actually increasing the danger of a nuclear incident.

If you are not brainwashed about everybody and everything in the Middle East, look up YouTube, English AlJezeera for a half-hour interview with Assange done by a Brit named Frost whose program is called “Frost over the World”. (unfortunate title for American slang officiandos—one of the inevitable results of worldwide use of any one nation’s language). The interview is straightforward and informative: Touches on Wiki motives and history and hopes, such as: Need for universal open interchange of information and dangers of unnecessary secrecy; injustice must and can be exposed; institutions working in secret easily become corrupt; WikiLeaks is overwhelmed with free materials sent to them from all over the world; why the world needs WikiLeaks, etc. Also a YouTube video “Why the World Needs WikiLeaks” under the name of Creative Commons.
Assange appears to be brilliant, humble in spite of all the spotlighting, and able to maintain a level head in the face of tremendous pressures. Thank God he has a lot of worldwide support which he may need. I have a lot of faith in this issue as a possible eyeopener to the future of public information, and a corrective to military over-reaching.

Rare earths are a group of exotic elements of the Periodic Table (Lanthanides, mostly), with unique electrical, magnetic, optical and other properties. Without them there’s basically no clean tech, green tech, advanced electronics, electric cars, and much more. It’s not that rare earths are geologically “rare.” It’s more that they’re so darned hard to process in industrial quantities, and into high tolerance end products. That is, the end products are mostly in the nature of “designer molecules.”

RE: ...Out of all the lies that run on Fox 24 hours a day, inspired by Rupert’s undoubted Fascism, you pick a story about bin Laden where they might finally have told a truth that most intelligent people already knew long before their story aired?

wrong - it’s dated Dec. 2001 - the month the reports emerged

RE: Any media outlet that would have two retards like Hannity and O’Reilly spouting propagandized inanities day after day is not interested in the truth or informing the public about anything. And you know it, so don’t pretend you don’t.

your take on this is wrong - I will now posit my own opinion (which I rarely do) - those guys are there to inflame Left vs Right divisive, street-fighting-style politics - the same reason Randi Rhodes is on the air to point to those guys as the enemy of so-called ‘progressives’ - all useful fools/tools/rich assets, whatever - tasked to distract from the common enemy: The Global Finance Oligarchy

RE: You love injustice and conformity.

this couldn’t be more wrong - as a multimedia artist I create award- winning works, invested with raw derisive displays of injustice verging on war crimes - I won’t share specifics about that work, simply for the safety of my collaborators - too much vitriol flowing in these blogs

Finally, I seriously doubt that Phillip Adams would publicly lie about his association with Wikileaks. I take him at his word. Moreover, what explanation might we imagine for so revered a champion of social justice to continue his long, close association with Murdoch’s The Australian, especially in consideration of how thoroughly you’ve trashed the publication?

For over 40 years Phillip Adams’ columns in major newspapers and magazine have provoked discussion and outrage. He’s been with The Australian since the early 1960s…

As a courtesy, let’s invite Mr. Adams to weigh in on all that’s been written about him here. Perhaps he’ll be interested in knowing how some Wikileaks Lemmings are using his association with Wikileaks in public blogs, as well as those questioning it’s mission.

The links SIMON posted at the bottom of the thread are well worth reading. They add perspective and proof of the propagandist nature of the open assault on WikiLeaks.

We Americans are so isolated, lied to and brow beaten we forget that others in the World see reality free of the Rovian lie machine. Human reason and dignity in America have been held at gunpoint for so long the smokescreen of fear and paranoia colors our every action.

The abandonment of Assange and Manning by the American Press and its “party line” capitulation to the Obama Junta turns my stomach.

‘This story is well corroborated by numerous eye-witness accounts. But Murchoch’s Fox New didn’t have to run it. So, why would they, while Murdoch’s Neocon buddies, and his own network, in other shows were still building and shilling (in 2001) the OBL Myth?’

Out of all the lies that run on Fox 24 hours a day, inspired by Rupert’s undoubted Fascism, you pick a story about bin Laden where they might finally have told a truth that most intelligent people already knew long before their story aired? And then you talk about ‘old news’. You can’t make anything about Fox decent or honorable so don’t even try. They are a cesspit of lies, spin, misinformation, racism, sexism and a wing of the Republican Party. Any media outlet that would have two retards like Hannity and O’Reilly spouting propagandized inanities day after day is not interested in the truth or informing the public about anything. And you know it, so don’t pretend you don’t.

And if you already know everything Perkins said about the CIA, the corporations and government how could you possibly believe the spin about Wikileaks being part of that hideous trinity? Clearly Wikileaks is the opposite of everything they are and is a danger to their whole deceitful and unjust agenda which is why they’re pursuing Assange and Wikileaks with the unbelievable venom that they are. As ever, they’re happy to break any number of laws to silence any form of opposition and apparently that’s fine with you. If you can’t see all this, you’re incredibly stupid. Or incredibly deceitful. If you want me not to be spiteful, stop telling lies about Wikileaks and making baseless accusations backed up by dubious links to dubious commentators. In case you haven’t realized yet, this is not about you. It’s about freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom to dissent. And before you claim the right to dissent, being a dissenter means resisting injustice and conformity. You love injustice and conformity.

Interesting article in the current New Yorker called “No Secrets,” by Raffi Khatchadourin. Here’s a tiny excerpt:
“Assange, despite his claims to scientific journalism, emphasized to me that his mission is to expose injustice, not to provide an even-handed record of events. In an invitation to potential collaborators in 2006, he wrote, “Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations.” He has argued that a “social movement” to expose secrets could “bring down many administrations that rely on concealing reality—including the US administration.”
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian#ixzz1B8PVvbnf
In everything you read and hear from now on about Assange and related matters, check politics of sources and evaluate what you read and hear. The situation is vitally important, IMO. Because freedom of the press (as well as freedom to be what you are and do what you think right) are at stake, controversy is inevitable and sources of power will make huge efforts to influence public opinion.

“risks destabilizing the Pakistani state” or stirring the pot to the boiling point and more.

I’m certainly not an expert in PoliSci, nor much on conspiracy theories, nonetheless, I cannot help but wonder if the our professed aim of stabilizing the world is in fact what we in reality desire as an ulitmate result. A stable world may not be in our interest. A stable world might tend to marginalize the U.S., not as a military power, but rather economically.

Are we keeping our debt holders hostage by saying one thing and subtlely doing the opposite? Do we make ourselves seemingly indispensibile by our interventionism?

RE: There’s a couple of genuine conspiracies to get your teeth into. But of course you won’t be interested in them, because you prefer fake conspiracies of your own invention that you hope might damage Wikileaks. I think it’s pretty obvious why you want to do that.

~~~~~~~~~

That’s some extensive straw-man rhetoric. Curiously, we agree on all of No. 1 and No. 2 - I don’t need lecturing on any of it - old news - yet… the Wikileaks drama?

There is also the curiosity of Assange being on records as “annoyed” with the 9/11 Truth Movement. Many others in agreement with No.1 and No.2 also find that curious.

Finally, even more curious: your irrationally spiteful tone… “By the way, just in case you don’t grasp it, that’s an accusation.”

Thank goodness we can do this without sharing the same bar space and with a couple pieces strapped on - might be that nobody’d get out alive.

...of course the MSM is full of lies, but it can’t all be lies all the time: e.g.

This story is well corroborated by numerous eye-witness accounts. But Murchoch’s Fox New didn’t have to run it. So, why would they, while Murdoch’s Neocon buddies, and his own network, in other shows were still building and shilling (in 2001) the OBL Myth?

Now, I refuse to engage in puerile, ad hominem tit for tat, so I’ll simply end with this 3-part interview with John Young - member of the Wikileaks founding team

And of course you know who owns ‘The Australian’ don’t you? Rupert Murdoch. In fact I think it was almost his first paper and he dominates every single thing that ever appears in it. This rag has become a byword for spin and distortion in Australia. People make jokes about the incredible bias displayed by the journalists and the editor. It’s the paper equivalent of ‘Fox News’ but I wouldn’t even use it for toilet paper.

You are now in desperation territory Fearnotruth because you can’t prove a thing you’ve said about Wikileaks being a front for the CIA. By the way, just in case you don’t grasp it, that’s an accusation. Wikileaks is no front for the CIA, though there are plenty of TV channels and newspapers that are, as a former CIA officer openly stated after he left the ‘Agency’. And I’ve heard Phillip Adams talking on his radio program about how he discussed Wikileaks with Assange and about the setting up of the advisory board. I can hardly blame people for denying they gave advice after what America is trying to do to Assange. I guess they don’t want to end up in solitary confinement like Manning, either. Adams himself has had death threats - a not completely unfamiliar experience for him.

But if you’re really interested in conspiracies you could think about things like this:

1. “I see now that Robert McNamara’s greatest and most sinister contribution to history was to jockey the World Bank into becoming an agent of global empire on a scale never before witnessed. For example, George Schultz was secretary of the treasury and chairman of the Council on Economic Policy under Nixon, served as Bechtel president and then became secretary of state under Reagan.Caspar Weinberger was a Bechtel vice president and general council, and later the secretary of defense under Reagan. Richard Helms was Johnson’s CIA director and then became ambassador to Iran under Nixon. Richard Cheney served as secretary of defense under George H.W. Bush, was president of Halliburton and was US vice president to George W. Bush. Even as president of the United States, George H.W. Bush began as the founder of Zapata Petroleum Corporation, served as US ambassador to the UN under presidents Nixon and Ford and was Ford’s CIA director.’ (p. 79, ‘Confessions of an Economic Hit Man’, John Perkins).

2. “The Bush family and the house of Saud, the two most powerful dynasties in the world, have had close personal, business and political ties for more than 20 years. The Saudis supported Harken energy, a struggling oil company in which George W. Bush was an investor. More recently former president George H.W. Bush and his longtime ally, James Bakker III, have appeared before Saudis at fundraisers for the Carlyle Group, one of the biggest private equity companies in the world. George H.W. Bush served as a senior advisor to the firm, whose investors allegedly include a Saudi accused of ties to terrorist support groups. Just days after 9/11 wealthy Saudi Arabians including members of the bin Laden family were whisked out of the US on private jets. No one will admit to clearing the flights and the passengers weren’t questioned.” (p. 98, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man).

There’s a couple of genuine conspiracies to get your teeth into. But of course you won’t be interested in them, because you prefer fake conspiracies of your own invention that you hope might damage Wikileaks. I think it’s pretty obvious why you want to do that.

I’m asking questions and citing what I find online that appears significant - if one takes
substantive exception, that’s pertinent - if you show “These are facts”, I’ll study what
you cite

I’d consider that a pertinent contribution - this not: “You don’t know the history of the
organization and you don’t want to know it because you want to lie and spread disinformation.
That’s your choice but you can’t make something true just by wishing it was so.”

On how he came to be a member of the WikiLeaks advisory board, Adams told The
Australian: “He asked me to go on it years ago, when it was just a vague idea and WikiLeaks
sounded like the sort of thing one should support, so I agreed. But as I point out to people, he
has never asked for advice. The advisory board was pretty clearly window dressing, so he went
for people identified with progressive policies around the place (he got Chomsky signed up in
the States, for example).

“Most of those, I think, are in the same position as me: they have not met him and they haven’t
been asked for advice either.”

In April, Mother Jones magazine revealed that several members of the “advisory board” knew
nothing about it. Khamsitsang recalled getting a cryptic email from WikiLeaks a few years ago,
but said he never agreed to be an adviser.

Are small terrorist nuclear blasts in the U.S.A. inevitable? If the U.S. can’t catch the cave squatters of 9/11 how would it even respond if a U.S. city was bombed? In theory a handful of religious idiots could hold the World hostage. Do you just kill everybody? It’s the perfect fascist ploy to hold the World hostage “for its own good”. But everybody in the World can’t be compromised and infiltrated.

I think we should remember that there are sane and civilized Nations outside the U.S. who see the machinations of our political leadership for what it is. Human reason is under such intense assault inside the U.S. truth has become treason. Look at poor Assange and Manning. We must refuse to abandon each other and ourselves. It is our personal humanity that will save us.

This was a much needed and well researced article article. Thank you Mr. Branfman.

The revelation that Rove and those representing the alleged rape victims in Sweden (thanks for the links SIMON) have been involved in rendition, the CIA, and the corruption of Swedish courts is a shock but not a suprise. It is time we stop projecting supernatural powers on the willing fools who play “hot potato” with the nuclear question. Accepting that they are the avaricious small souled thugs they appear to be is the best first step.

You’re making accusations too, fearnotruth, and you don’t have a shred of evidence to back up anything you say. I know for a fact that Julian Assange was already discussing setting up Wikileaks with Phillip Adams in Australia in 2006. He set up a ‘commission’ of advisors, including legal advisors and (surprise, surprise) none of them were from the intelligence services. Phillip Adams for your information is a lifelong lefty, writer, radio broadcaster and public intellectual and no friend of the intelligence services (who had a file on him for years) and this is true of most of the people who are involved with Wikileaks. These are facts: links to the ravings and speculations of this person and that person are not facts. You don’t know the history of the organization and you don’t want to know it because you want to lie and spread disinformation. That’s your choice but you can’t make something true just by wishing it was so.

Here’s my take:
1. Obviously, the Cable materials were not really “secured” because they contained no information whose release would have dangerous consequences. WikiLeaks editing further reduced any danger. The five or six newspapers to whom they were release again did further editing, and took on printing some of them in the interests of preserving freedom of speech.
2. The Cables were released to illustrate the dangers to democracy when governments keep their citizens from knowing things they need to know to self-govern. Also, in a world with electronic communication capablities, democratic governments need to become informed about the growing impossibility of using secrecy to acquire and hold power.
3. That the Leaks were unexpected was embarrassing to officials, which accounts for their hysteria in trying to “kill the messengers.” Some also probably see in this incident an added possibility to “kill the internet” and put controls on free speech.
4. Government is confused as to how to respond because the Leaks caused them to “fall on their own sword”—a further embarrassment as they were caught in a position where their own methods brought them up short—secrecy, graft, etc., which need reform with or without Wiki, but won’t be reformed so long as they can be kept secret.
5. Particularly in a nuclear world, citizens of democracies absolutely must have open information—all they can get. So the Leaks are a call to citizens to wake up and acknowledge the value and possibilities of the Internet (which those who wish to control the strings of money and power are trying, will try to kill.
It’s up to us chickens to defend Assange and Manning (who are being attacked as a side-show and distraction) and to encourage our government to step into the 21st Century understanding the enormous value of instant worldwide free information sharing—something entirely new to everybody on this old planet.

RE: ...The day the CIA sets up a website to reveal the truth about its activities…

Q1: which of the ‘leaks’ “reveals the truth about” CIA, MI6, Mossad activities?

Q2: what, in this or any question I’ve posed, is “disinformation”?

Taking exception, in detail, with quoted content from cited links, would serve the
discussion. It adds nothing, only distracts, making accusations like this:

”...running a disinformation campaign to counter the truth about what Wikileaks is
revealing (for reasons I can guess) but they must believe people on here are incredibly
gullible if they think they’ll fall for their hysterical, fact-free spin.”

such accusations, made without citation of evidentiary support - at least an attempt -
lead nowhere - listen to the Tarpley interview - is he ”...running a disinformation
campaign? If so, a citation please.

Our leaders showed their true colors when the flood hit Pakistan.
Instead of dropping tons of our subsidised farm products to suffering folks,
They bragged about the 11 helicopters they diverted.
Then continued killing them with remote controlled airplanes.

Maybe they are trying to jump start recovery in bomb shelter construction here at home??

Yes, Marta, that is definitely part of the paranoia driving the persecution of Assange. While tropicgirl raves on about non-existent links between Wikileaks and the military/industrial complex you’ve hit the nail on the head. Of course they fear such information coming to light, and why wouldn’t they? It was treason, after all. Tropicgirl, fearnotruth and Candide are running a disinformation campaign to counter the truth about what Wikileaks is revealing (for reasons I can guess) but they must believe people on here are incredibly gullible if they think they’ll fall for their hysterical, fact-free spin. The day the CIA sets up a website to reveal the truth about its activities or those of the Republicans, or the US military is the day I believe in the Easter Bunny.

First, Truthdig, can we PLEASE have single page format? This cluttered page by cluttered page is a REAL nuisance. Do you want to be read?

Second, “2010 Harvard study reported” Few things so irritate readers and damage the credibility of writers and editors as links to nowhere - in this case a link to a haystack full of needles. It’s just sloppy. Give us a break.

“NPR: So were you at those meetings with members of the Obama administration, going over documents, deciding what to publish and what not to?

Mr. SANGER: I was at…

NPR: Hearing the Obama administration arguments about what not to publish?

Mr. SANGER: I was at some of the meetings at which the Obama administration made some requests. There were no decisions made there. The Times took the requests back and considered them and Bill Keller, our executive editor, and a number of other editors, made the decisions in the end about where they would draw the line. I did hear some of the administration’s concerns along with several of my colleagues and with Dean Baquet, who is our bureau chief here in Washington, and we asked a number of questions so that we understood the nature of the State Department’s concerns, but the decisions were not ours.”

And then…

Mr. SANGER:…But we’ve known for years that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, many other countries deeply fear that an Iran with a nuclear weapon – even if Iran didn’t use that weapon – would become the most powerful state within the region. And what became clear from the WikiLeaks documents and what really jumped out at us was how explicit they were about those concerns when speaking in confidence to American officials. And in some cases, how explicit they were that the United States should step in with military action if Israel did not, and that was implicit in many of those quotations that you read.”

NPR: Oh, that’s interesting. And so that’s an example of what you mean by about how it might actually be helpful in some ways to American interests to have disclosed these documents?

Mr. SANGER: It could turn out that way…

(John Young of Cryptome, the “original Wikileaker”:)“So here we have a globalist PR agent working for the New York Times who admits that the Times’ agenda is clearly to help foster our leader’s globalist agenda around the world and he states without reservation that the Obama administration is using Wikileaks to further that agenda through them.

Wikileaks was always a psyop program from day one. John Young knew that as they were creating it, that’s why he got out and published the emails, so that people would not be suckered in by it.

Wikileaks is serving the greater good of the globalist’s empire interests. Do yourself a favor… don’t download this crap, don’t mirror it. You want real leaks? Go to Cryptome go to What Really Happened go to Information Clearinghouse go to Global Research or go to any other legitimate dissent news sites and leave this Rockefeller/NSA creation alone.”

And for those who are interested in digging deeper… the connections to the globalist war agenda are clear to me…

““Michel Chossudovsky over at Global Research has put up an interesting NPR transcript with some rather revealing statements about Wikileaks that were made by the New York Times chief Washington correspondent, David Sanger. Sanger is one of the New York Times reporters who have been reading and writing about the different state department memos “leaked” by Wikileaks. He was also involved in meetings with the Obama administration and others which selected and redacted the cables that would be published.

Decades ago Daniel Ellsberg chose Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky to edit his leaks, the Pentagon Papers, and now Jullian Assange, by forfeit, selects the likes of David Sanger?

Here are just a few examples from this interesting interview:

“If we had done nothing, if we had ignored it, I think it would have looked strange. I think that also would have been irresponsible. It is the responsibility of American journalism, back to the founding of this country, to get out and try to grapple with the hardest issues of the day and to do it independently of the government.” Sanger

And then just a few minutes later…

“… We’re explaining what’s important here and what’s not. And we’re filtering it out to try to avoid the greatest harm to individuals (like Israel, India?), ongoing operations and so forth.”“

There isn’t a single American/British/Israeli globalist agenda that isn’t strongly supported by the Wikileaks ”leaks”. Clearly the agenda here is being created by the state department.

I made the connection between Assange and the globalists agenda, in this case of destroying certain countries, using our servicemen. But, if you want to make the connection to the CIA, it would be indirect.

But, you might find this article interesting. Just search-engine some of the words for the original article…

““Cryptome.org’s John Young, “the original Wikileaker,” warns that Assange is being set up to be the fall guy for a massive lurch towards Internet censorship. One of the original members of Wikileaks warns that a series of bigger bombshell revelations are in the pipeline and that the growing crisis being contrived around the group and its figurehead Julian Assange is greasing the skids for the cybersecurity agenda to regulate and censor the world wide web.

Cryptome.org founder John Young, who the New York Observer recently characterized as “the original Wikileaker,” told the Alex Jones Show how he volunteered to register Wikileaks.org in December 2007 under his name for Wikileaks members who wanted to remain anonymous, with the understanding that the site was merely for the public benefit. Young became suspicious when he was subsequently told that the aim was to raise $5 million dollars within the first six months.

“I said wait a minute, that doesn’t sound like public benefit to me, that sounds like a high value funded program,” said Young, likening the scenario to a George Soros-style outfit.

“This was a business operation not a public benefit operation and it’s turned out to be that,” said Young, concurring with the fact that Wikileaks was introduced into the public arena by Cass Sunstein in a Washington Post editorial. This is important because in a 2008 white paper, Sunstein, who is now Obama’s White House information czar, argued that government entities should pose as “conspiracy theorists” as part of a clandestine plot to discredit independent media voices and ultimately demolish free speech on the Internet.

Young said that Wikileaks provided the perfect pretext for government to raise funds for a cybersecurity infrastructure that would eventually be used to silence free speech and regulate the Internet.

“Some of the enthusiasts for Wikileaks seem to be operating in concert with some of its opponents, it looks like they’re in lock step to me,” said Young, noting that the whole fiasco was a display of theatre designed to test whether the cybersecurity agenda is ready to get traction. Given the fact that establishment Republicans are already introducing legislation aimed at criminalizing Wikileaks, circumstances clearly indicate that the crisis is being exploited to push Internet censorship.

Although George Soros’ Open Society Institute denies having any connection to Wikileaks, Young personally had conversations with Wikileaks founders who told him of their efforts to secure funding from the organization, at which point Young resigned from Wikileaks. Young said that Wikileaks were all but bankrupt when they were operating on their own but have now “raised millions by being on the inside.”

Young said that Wikileaks was not an independent organization nor one controlled by government, but instead a “concept, an aspiration, a goal….not anything you’re going to be able to take down by the usual means,” which is why Young predicts Wikileaks will not be taken down. However, he cautioned that Wikileaks now redacting documents was a sign that they have been co-opted to a large extent.””

It’s interesting to know the Taliban was on the CIA payroll, & Reagan/Bush called them Freedom Fighters,—so was Saddam, Noriago to mention others, and Robert Gates was in with Bush Sr. & the Contra Deal. Bush lied,- illegally invaded—a million died , so why is Bush/Chaney running free?? Wikileaks tells the truth and Lieberman is behind shutting up Assange. Is there fear the world will know what most aready suspect, who really was behind 9/11????

Well, if pakistan doesn’t use its highly technological logistics to
lob or plant a nuclear device and detonate it in america, the old
w & dick team will ‘get her done’, that is if they did not rendition
all those who wired the 2 towers and wtc7 for demolition.

tropicgirl you are really an idiot!
WikiLeaks is merely a platform releasing information for the public interest. It exists to keep the bastards honest and it is making a good fist of it to boot…..!
Neither Assange nor WikiLeaks has anything to do with any Mr. Soros; nothing whatsoever!
Assange has been a long standing advocate for A FREE PRESS. Certainly a rebel, and in his early days in Melbourne, an adept hacker.
God’s Death girl, he dances to his own tune, no one else’s! Is that what you find so disturbing about him?
What are you so afraid of……..? Don’t you want to KNOW……..?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH REVEALING THE FUCKING TRUTH behind the often vile, vicious and duplicitous machinations of your government and that of ours in Australia……….?

No, wikileaks does not prop up neocon propaganda about Pakistan. Christian fundamentalist war criminals; violent psychotic pro-corporate scum like the clintons, bushes, and obama are in charge of the US nuclear stockpile; that is a danger to the entire planet, and they should be locked up.

70% of America just crapped itself and wonders why don’t have more boots on the ground in Pakistan because it just found out that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is guarded by a tens of thousands of folks that hate us. Thanks Wikileaks.

God, tropic girl, get a grip. Assange is not CIA but bin Laden was, before he died or was killed that is. What kind of a mental universe do you inhabit where you take every attempt to destroy Assange and shut Wikileaks down as proof that both are controlled by the CIA? Do you also get secret messages from the fillings in your teeth or haven’t you reached that stage yet? And Candide is even more delusional than you are, believing that Assange is a CIA asset gone ‘rogue’. What complete and utter bullshit. The CIA doesn’t go through the courts to get rid of assets, they just have them killed.

POINT #1 If you want people to agree to limiting nuclear proliferation and join in promises to help you decrease the demand, you don’t send in drones to kill their people.
POINT #2 If you want people to trust you, you don’t make agreements that favor people they regard as their enemies.
POINT #3 If you want people to stop supporting secrecy, coercion and violence, you don’t convince them by supporting secrecy, coercion and violence yourself.
POINT #4: If you want peace, you don’t go to war.
POINT #5: If you are wise, you don’t attempt to dictate changes you advocate by trying to force your way on others, especially those whose history and culture are vastly different from your own, cultures which you can’t be bothered to try to understand.

All these “don’ts”—sad, even tragic to say—are important parts of “foreign policy” everywhere. Even sadder, the greatest democracy in the world with the most wealth and military power is not even trying to discover better ways. Instead, it is putting its tremendous power and influence behind repeating the same failing methods.

WikiLeaks may serve as a call for the birth of a new era of worldwide decency when it is most crucially needed. Somebdy’s got to lead. Who better than the United States?

“The U.S. government disastrously miscalculated in ignoring local public opinion in Iran. It is even more foolishly doing something similar today in Pakistan, which, unlike Iran then, has both nuclear weapons and an economy on the verge of collapse.”

We might also want to point out:

“The U.S. government disastrously miscalculated in ignoring local public opinion in the United States, which has both nuclear weapons and an economy on the verge of collapse.”

but assange isn’t stupid and realized the fate reserved for all such “assets”...

and thus started building “insurance”.

He thus has become “rogue”.

and must be eliminated.

What’s so hard to understand?

————-

As for nukes…

to be perfectly honest, the whole world can’t wait till 4 or five small nukes rid the world once and for all of those sowing so much misery around (2 in iz and 3 in us).

what comes after?

well, that could be tough…

but enough of this “the devil you know”...

it is time to dispose of the beast.

In any case the monster is imploding, economically, politically and even militarily (nato is about to go poof). The treasonous european and asian leaders who put US interests before those of their own gladio controlled countries, those leaders’ days are numbered. It not taken out, the beast is only interested in taking others down with it so as not to be alone in its demise… if that isn’t pathetic!

I said, on this very website, that if this stuff with Wiki comes around to Pakistan, Iran, or expanding war, in any way, that it would be an indication of what most people are saying now, including one of the co-founders of the original Wiki:

Assange is a Soros machine working to further these wars. Only parading around as a truth teller. Deep “undercover”. I’m still waiting for something useful.

Anyway, the next thing to watch is whether they will throw him under the entire bus, with charges and extensive jail time, not just a few days or months. That will clinch it. But I am already convinced so I call it now. He will be safe. Unless…